Torvalds Rejects One-Size-Fits-All Linux

Barence writes "Linus Torvalds has rejected the argument that Linux developers should pool their resources behind a single distribution. 'I think multiple distributions aren't just a good thing, I think it's something absolutely required. We have hundreds of distros, and a lot of them are really for niche markets. And you need that — simply because different markets simply have different requirements, and no single distro will take care of them all.' The calls from the Linux community have been growing due to Linux's failure to show significant market share growth."

Comments

Before you start screaming about this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you ever think that he might be right?

Re:Before you start screaming about this.

[TheKidWho]

Not only that, but it's a free world, who gives them the right to tell ME what to work on?

Re:Before you start screaming about this.

[Lord Ender]

Maybe not. At least, not exactly.

Suppose someone creates a very minimalist linux distro which includes a very good package management system. Suppose this package management system includes nearly all popular linux software packages.

Now suppose it were rather easy for anyone to install any number of those packages, bundle them together into one meta-package keyword, and call that a distro.

Then Linux would be as simple as installing the minimalist distro, then doing "apt-get install smartphone-system" for a distro customized for smartphones, or "media-system" for a distro customized for mediacenter PCs, etc.

I think this would be a superior option to having many completely independent distributions, and it would allow for faster innovation and easier support.

Re:Before you start screaming about this.

[DragonWriter]

But how about a little less fragmentation?

Fine. Everyone should stop working on your favorite distro now, and work on my favorite distro instead, okay? That'll get us "a little less fragmentation".

Calls for "less fragmentation" are vacuous without a call to unite behind something specific; then we can debate the pros and cons of what would be gained and what would be lost. Of course, the people you really have to convince are the people working on whatever would be axed, since its an open source community and the only way to make that happen is to convince those people to stop working on what they've been working on and start working on something else.

Re:Before you start screaming about this.

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

the kernel _I_ use is not bloated. it's 20 something seconds from tapping enter on grub's menu to the login prompt (i log in text mode).

okay, i'm a hardcore debian user, i know how to compile my own kernel, but still, ubuntu 9.04 beta boots in pretty much the same time with a kernel that includes everything plus the kitchen sink.

the kernel is not bloated, it's just that it comes with drivers for a shitload of hardware.

take windows' kernel. if you include on it's source tree all kinds of drivers, for all kind of hardware, how many megs the code would be ?

it's not bloat, it's neccessity.

strip it down by deleting all .c, .cpp, .h, etc, files from stuff you don't need and it'll get pretty slim.

Re:Before you start screaming about this.

[Zero__Kelvin]

"But that's mainly a problem with the way that Linux is put together not the distros. The Linux kernel last time I checked was something like 30mb. Admittedly that was years ago, but when you've got a kernel that bloated it's going to be difficult to have it also work on a smart phone."

Actually the main problem with Linux isn't Linux at all, but rather ignorance on the part of those who don't understand Linux at all but spread incorrect information. For example, you are confusing the size of the source tarball, which includes support for pretty much any feature you could ever want on more than 20 hardware architectures, with the size of the resultant binary executable after the kernel options are configured and the source is compiled. You then go on to make absurd statements based on this lack of understanding.

Linux is the foundation of many small memory footprint embedded systems including, but not limited to, cell phones. The entire Motorola Razr series is Linux based, and perhaps you've heard of the G1? Saying it is difficult because the Linux kernel is bloated has to be the worst kind of bad information. It misses on every count in every way. Empirical evidence contradicts your claims at every turn ...

A really hope you are kidding.

[Sir_Lewk]

Clearly you are not very familar with the linux (or OSS) community. Ever notice the wide range of opinions concerning things like design, inclusion policies, licensing, etc? Have you thought what would happen if you tried to make all those people share a distro? There are plenty of flamewars already, do that and the community would tear itself appart. New distros don't pop up for the hell of it, they pop up because people want something that fits *their specific needs*. Their needs are often unique. People need to get off this whole idea that linux is about "sticking it to the man" and that it needs to change in order to get better marketshares, just for the sake of marketshares. Linux is meant to be useful for people who want it, if it's not for you, then who cares? We're not out to become rich billionaires by toppling microsoft and apple, we're just making a nice operating system for ourselves. This is something the majority of the world can't seem to understand.

"Failure to show significant market growth"

[Facetious]

I grow weary of people citing a single, dubious source and saying, "See! See! Linux has failed on the desktop." The problem is that the methodology for gaging adoption is almost always in the form of web trackers, and people have really bad assumptions about user and system behavior. For example:

• The sample of websites used is non-scientific because they are paying for the tracking service.
• The assumption is made that people using Linux are interested in the same things as everyone else.
• There is a massive difference in reporting numbers based on the source of the data. Some claim Linux users are less than 1% of total traffic. Others claim more than 3%. (Similary, Mac is as low as 3% and as high as 9%.)
• Linux users use browsers with pop-up blockers. A good many Windows users still don't use pop-up blockers, and every pop-up counts as a hit for a Windows user.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Don't believe everything you read.